Memory Alpha talk:Administrators
Bureaucrat status Just to clarify, I was made a temporary bureaucrat to deal with the admin nominations that already piled up. Angela didn't have the time to deal with it herself immediately, and will probably remove that status later. However, it seems as if another bureaucrat might be a good idea. Are there any suggestions regarding a nomination procedure for bureaucrats? -- Cid Highwind 16:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC) I just checked, seems as if I'm still a bureaucrat. I don't need to keep that position, but I think we need at least one active bureaucrat on MA/en. Since there hasn't been any formal nomination/voting procedure, I just want to bring this up for discussion. Please voice any possible objections with me having this status here. -- Cid Highwind 15:15, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC) :I certainly support you remaining a bureaucrat; we could definitely use an extra one. -- SmokeDetector47 // ''talk'' 21:38, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC) :: Possibly another, since the first two are AWOL. --Alan del Beccio 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC) List of admins *Jan H. Kobarg (en, de:, de: nl:) => twice "de" to change *eo and pl admins are lacking Spanish admins The admin there is ElAuriano - one of our admins should list that here. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 21:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC) :Done. --From Andoria with Love 23:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC) I am admin of MA/es too. --Sr Vulcano 11:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Rollback feature There's a new feature available, allowing bureaucrats to give out a "rollback right" to non-admin users. This right basically consists of an additional link on diff pages, allowing to easily rollback an edit. Any user already can do a "manual" rollback by editing an older version of the page, so this isn't really an additional right like the admin rights of blocking and deleting. I'm not sure we need a complicated vote&discuss policy for giving out those rights. Would anyone mind me giving these rights to a handful of trustable "residents"? (Note:I already gave this right to User:Bp). -- Cid Highwind 15:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC) :I don't see any problem with that at all. (Except for that Bp guy... I would give him the time of day, much less any extra rights! :P) -- Renegade54 16:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC) New or questionable users Would anybody be against the addition of a rule stating that votes of newly registered users or users with a questionable history will not be counted? This is obviously in relation to our recent nomination in which StoryMaster, who has done nothing but disrupt the community, opposed Enzo's nomination, obviously because his own nomination failed miserably. Since new users likely won't be familiar with a nominee's edits, anyway, I don't think their votes should count. --From Andoria with Love 03:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC) :Yes. I would. Who decides which people's votes don't count? Anyone's vote should count. As long as they have a justified explanation for such. If they state that they have a problem with edits, then examples must be provided, with an explanation for why such edits are a problem, etc. That would be a better addition to the policy. -- Sulfur 03:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC) ::Just to clarify, by "new" I mean someone who's been here less than a week (I think that's when the server stops recognizing users as new), and by "questionable history", I mean those who have vandalized, disrupted, harassed, and so forth, and have done basically nothing else since they've been here. ::Re:sulfur. That's what the policy currently says; a reasonable explanation needs to be provided, particularly for objections. I'm just suggesting this new policy to further ensure that we avoid the "riff-raff", as it were. ;) --From Andoria with Love 03:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Request un-speedy delete of images I spent the good part of today updating and expanded United States military insignia and in the last five minutes, without discussion or explanation, three insignia images were speedy deleted and then blanked from the article. These images were: File:US o-8 rank pin.png File:US o-7 rank pin.png File:US o-1 rank pin.png I think this was kind of rude since I started a talk page disucssion on the very subject. My whole point is that even though the images were not seen, they are implied by other insignia, much like several of the images seen in Starfleet ranks (higher Admiral ranks which never appear on screen). In any event, there was one comment posted by User:Captainmike and then the images started getting deleted. CM has since claimed the images are his property and he has the right to speedy delete without discussion which I don't believe is the case http://memory-alpha.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Captainmike&diff=664229&oldid=664227. My understanding is that once you post to this site it becomes community property. And, for that matter, a User cannot lay copyright claim to a generic military insignia picture. This should have been discussed, especally since I took the time to start the discussion. I ask that these images be undeleted until this can be sorted out. (P.S.- Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this) -FleetCaptain 20:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC) :ATTENTION: Talk:United States military insignia. -- Cid Highwind 20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Unresolved Merge Request I was just wondering if an admin could merge Warrant Officer into Starfleet ranks. Three votes for and none against. Shouldnt be any problem with merging it in. I could also do it myself if such a thing is permitted. -FC 04:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC) :Merges get dealt with on a semi-regular basis. Generally, pestering does nothing, In this case, I did it because I'm cranky. -- Sulfur 04:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC) I didnt mean to pester, only inquire and advise. The last time I tried to do something like this myself, I was told not to but rather contact an administrator. Thanks for doing it in any event! -FC New Admins and Bureaucrats German MA Just for the page here. We has some more admins and bureaucrats. Admins: Roggan, Klossi and Tobi72 Bureaucrats: Bravomike, Shisma and Cid Highwind --Tobi72 17:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC) There is another change in MA/de. We have another Administrator: Plasmarelais. Could you please add him?--Tobi72 20:27, October 15, 2009 (UTC) :Done. — Morder (talk) 20:50, October 15, 2009 (UTC) Thank you.--Tobi72 21:27, October 21, 2009 (UTC) Hello again, there are some more changes in MA/de. Bravomike was changed from Bureaucrat to Admin on his own request and Klossi, Plasmarelais and Tobi72 were promoted to Bureaucrats. Please help to update the page.--Tobi72 22:05, December 24, 2010 (UTC) :Updated. Thanks for informing us. -- sulfur 01:02, December 25, 2010 (UTC) No problem and thx for the change.--Tobi72 12:51, December 25, 2010 (UTC) Contradiction This page seems to contain a contradiction; the introductory paragraph states, "Administrators still have the same responsibilities as any other regular user", but the page then goes on to list additional privileges & responsibilities that admins have! I therefore think the sentence should be deleted/changed, but I don't exactly know what to change it to, as I'm unaware of the writer's original intent in adding it. Does anyone know what it's meant to mean, or should it just be deleted? --Defiant 10:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC) :Different definition of responsibility there - in terms of context. Responsibility there, to me, would mean something along the lines of keeping the community a nice place. Not resorting to anything just because "I'm an administrator". Adding and removing content on site. That sort of thing. Maybe change the word "responsibilities" to "requirements". — Morder (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC) ::Yes. The first sentence is supposed to mean: "You don't lose any of the responsibilities that all users have by becoming an admin." The second statement that defines additional responsibilities. I think that's pretty obvious from the context, but I think just removing the word "same" from the first sentence should do the trick. -- Cid Highwind 12:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Memory Alpha Japanese Administrator Hello! My name is User:captainbond. I am Japanese. I'm solly. I cannot speak English. I am Administrator & Bureaucrat of Memory Alpha Japanese. Please add me to the following lists. Live long and prosper.(長寿と繁栄を)--ボンド大佐 05:56, November 23, 2009 (UTC) The second bureaucrat Not that I have anything against the guy, but I don't know why Erik Möller should still be a bureaucrat since we aren't using his hosting service and he's not an active contributor. That said, I still think we need a second, active bureaucrat, if only to stop Cid from become one of those crazy commodores drunk on their own power. Since there isn't any formal nomination procedure, or de-nomination procedure for that matter, I bring it up here. - 09:02, August 27, 2010 (UTC) :It may be worth attempting to contact Erik and see if he is still interested or not. Either way, it's probably a good idea to have another bureaucrat.--31dot 09:14, August 27, 2010 (UTC) Considering his last edit was in 2005, I think it's safe to say he wouldn't be, but I could be wrong. That said, how should we move forward on this new bureaucrat thing? Just put an admin up up for votes at the Nominations for administratorship page? It seems to me it would be a bit silly to create a Nominations for bureaucraticness(?) page if it's only going to be used very rarely, when we have one that would work. Ideas? - 03:03, August 28, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah, I think the admin nomination page would do just fine in this case. -- Renegade54 04:00, August 28, 2010 (UTC) I sent an email to Erik inviting him to the discussion, or at least I sent an email to the address he has list as of 2008 on his site. - 01:03, August 31, 2010 (UTC) Erik got back to me and said his bureaucrat flag should be removed. I'll contact wikia tomorrow on this. - 03:02, August 31, 2010 (UTC) :::Being the "sole active bureaucrat" didn't make me power-hungry and/or crazy during the better part of the last five years - so I consider a stupid comment like that, even if made in jest, to be insulting. Thank you very much. :::Regarding the addition of another bureaucrat, I wouldn't mind that, especially if it's sulfur as suggested. The thing is, though, that bureaucrats currently have exactly one additional function over admins - they manage user rights. Seeing how even that minimal task is circumvented as we speak, by other people running to Wikia directly, I'm sure we won't need further additional bureaucrats anytime soon... -- Cid Highwind 09:08, August 31, 2010 (UTC) Let me first say I'm sorry, since that comment was said in jest, even though I didn't add the smiley. I didn't think anyone could take it seriously, what with it being entirely unsubstantiated, and it was not my intention to be insulting. So, please excuse my poor taste. That said, the whole reason I brought this up was to reduce even a remote possible reason we would have to turn to wikia. The only reason I was going to contact them at all is because it's my understanding that only they can remove a bureaucrat flag. If that's wrong, then by all means excuse my ignorance and their entirely unhelpful help page on the matter. I can forward the relevant email to you if you feel like I'm trying to go around you in some way, since that is not my intention there either. Let me say that I don't see a need for more than two active bureaucrats, a few more admins maybe, since the idea is the more the better, but not another bureaucrat. - 12:59, August 31, 2010 (UTC) :::You're right, a bureaucrat can not take away bureaucrat rights, but only add them. The only other right a bureaucrat has (in addition to admin rights) is to both give and take admin and rollback rights. :::Perhaps the question needs to be: What job exactly do we want our bureaucrats to perform? There hasn't really been any need to answer that question yet... if the answer is that the bureaucrat just needs to push buttons as requested by the community, then that task can be performed by a very small number of bureaucrats, and we just need to make sure that not all of them get killed in freak accidents at the same time (and, really, not even that, because Wikia could just hand out new bureaucrat rights in that worst case scenario). On the other hand, if we want the bureaucrats to actively "maintain" some specific part of this Wiki (like, for example, user rights) in full, then that should perhaps include getting in contact with Wikia to have them push the buttons that the bureaucrats can't push themselves. :::Regarding Erik (User:Eloquence), I suggest to also remove admin rights while we're at it. Not as some sort of punishment for inactivity, but seeing that this user hasn't been active in five years and can't be considered an "active admin" any longer. -- Cid Highwind 14:16, August 31, 2010 (UTC) Erik actually requested that his admin rights be removed as well. He was actually surprised that it hadn't already been done. As for what a bureaucrat should do, I agree with what you said. Having a bureaucrat also actually make the "official" requests on behalf of the community (like namespace additions/changes or turning on/off new features) after some discussion on the topic is something I've always thought you did anyway, so that could be included as well IMO. A bureaucrat should also act as arbiter if conflicts arise between admins, not that i foresee any, just that it has happened before. I don't think any of that is really new, so actually writing it down shouldn't change anything. - 14:46, August 31, 2010 (UTC)